## Facts

- Claiborne County taxpayers and one school board member sued four Claiborne County School Board members in chancery court for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The suit challenged employment contracts between the school district and the spouses of the defendant board members.
- Plaintiffs alleged the contracts gave each board member an indirect interest in a public contract authorized by a board on which the member served, in violation of Mississippi Constitution of 1890, art. 4, § 109.
- The chancery court found the defendants violated § 109, declared the spouses’ employment contracts null and void, and enjoined further payments under those contracts during the defendants’ terms and for one year after leaving office.
- The defendant board members appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which issued a modified opinion on denial of rehearing.

## Issues

1. Whether a local school board violates Mississippi Constitution art. 4, § 109 by contracting to employ the spouses of its own members.
2. Whether such spousal employment contracts are void and may be enjoined during the member’s term and for one year thereafter.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.
- The Court held each defendant school board member “has been and is in violation of Section 109” due to the district’s employment contracts with the member’s spouse.
- The Court upheld the remedy declaring the spouses’ contracts null and void and enjoining any further salary or payments to those spouses while the defendants served on the board and for one year after they left office.

## Legal Principles

- Mississippi Constitution art. 4, § 109 bars a public officer from being interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state or a political subdivision that is authorized by a board of which the officer is a member, during the officer’s term and for one year thereafter.
- The prohibition is applied broadly to prevent self-dealing and to eliminate inducements for personal gain; it does not require proof of actual corruption, unfairness, or bad faith.
- A board member has an indirect pecuniary interest in a spouse’s employment contract with the political subdivision the member governs, where the governing board authorizes or controls that specific contract.
- General legislative action affecting broad classes (e.g., statewide appropriations) is materially different from a local governing body’s approval and control of specific employment contracts with members’ spouses.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a local school board may not employ the spouses of its members consistent with Mississippi Constitution art. 4, § 109; such contracts are void, and the district may be enjoined from making payments under them during the member’s tenure and for one year after the member leaves office.


Smith v. Dorsey, 530 So. 2d 5 (Miss. 1988)